Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

Sources on conflict of interest (chronological)

"including holding a cryptocurrency"Edit

Why are cryptocurrencies being singled out here? Shouldn't the explanatory text then include those holding currencies and commodies (apart from financial instruments and securities)? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm also interested, having read some articles on the internet that criticize this. Can we find out more about @Jytdog: ? It was you who added that sentence (see this diff). Lofhi (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please review the archives, where you will find this discussed twice. Given the recent disruption (there are current two open threads at admin boards) there is very little chance that either of you will get consensus to remove this.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: can you give me a link to the admin board? There seem to be several. I am not an English contributor. Lofhi (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
There is one at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_request_for_Comefrombeyond, another at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TBAN_for_Shiftchange.
You will find several others in this search of the admin boards and their archives, and yet more in the archives of the conflict of interest notice board, here.
by its nature of being open and on the internet, Wikipedia is vulnerable to any online group of advocates. Most cryptocurrencies have such groups around them, and on top of the regular advocacy (say vegans, or people who like some video game), we have very clear financial COI on top of fandom. Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
While its true that some hodlers of cryptocurrencies are prone to editing Wikipedia in a manner that is not in conformity with our policies and guidelines, the same principle is applicable to others dealing in currencies, commodities and securities. Singling out cryptocurrencies in this manner does not seem consistent. I sense an RfC in the making. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This is hand-wavy theoretical stuff and is not kind of argument that is going to persuade anybody in Wikipedia. Crypto people actually disrupting the hell out of WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Note: One of the threads above - the one TBANing Shiftchange, has closed and the permalink is here. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Note - Bitcoin.com has published If You’re a Wikipedia Contributor, Owning Cryptocurrency May Be a Conflict of Interest though they get the facts wrong. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on "cryptocurrencies"Edit

Should the COI policy page make a specific reference to cryptocurrencies? (see WP:EXTERNALREL). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes. There is nothing wrong with including it as an example. There has been a problem with users attempting to misuse WP to raise the value of their cryptocurrency holdings. Including it helps avoid misunderstandings about whether or not it is covered by this guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I would prefer “no”, as I don’t like listing specifics on stuff like COI out of fear it is impossible to list everything, but the current flavor of the day is crypto to the point where I know many people who would support a CSD criteria for it (likely wouldn’t pass, but it’s gotten to that level). When we’re being flooded with these articles making it clear when COI applies is important. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - it certainly is a flood. Cryptocurrency in general and initial coin offerings in particular are massive problems, along the line of our worst historical problems with financial products, binary options and retail forex. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per the above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes per Tryptofish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - It might be unclear to new users that the policy includes cryptocurrencies, since many cryptocurrency holders don't technically have any personal or professional relation to their coins. Adding an explicit reference, then, will clarify to holders that any edits they make about their coin WILL be considered COI. Nanophosis (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments on RfCEdit

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: should we just consider this closed? Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs above. We should let this run for a few weeks so we can potentially get wider community input. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you posted it anywhere? If you haven't, theere won't be any further input from Wikipedians. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As long as the RfC tag remains as it is now, it will be listed as an RfC until a month from the initial post has passed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: A bot invited me here about 7 hours ago (message on my talk page) so it's not impossible more people will show up. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: I found this at random browsing the list of open RfCs, and just happen to be incredibly sick of seeing edits about crypto that are clearly motivated by an investment in the coin. Anyway, I'd say it's almost done, but give it a few more days before closing. Nanophosis (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  Comment: I am still trying to understand why this is different from holding (or shorting!) a stock. Is it just that we have had a particular problem with this lately? Conversely, if there is a COI from holding a cryptocurrency, there is presumably equally a COI from holding a cryptocurrency-based derivative, such as a put: betting against a cryptocurrency would lead to an equivalent COI to holding the cryptocurrency, no? - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's a combination of it being a particular problem lately and it being potentially not as obvious as some other things. Obviously, we cannot and should not list everything, but it can be helpful to specify something when experience has shown that it is not often understood. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"If there is no objection"Edit

The section WP:COI#If you're the editor with the conflict of interest has just been added by Nick Levinson. I've looked at it critically, and I basically like it. But I think that it may be worth discussing the last sentence, which says that after waiting one week: If there is no objection, you may edit consistently with your proposal. Would there be any value in making it more restrictive than that? (I'm not sure.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the section duplicates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § COI editing, and so I'd prefer that the new section be reverted, and any potential new changes made to the "COI editing" section. Regarding the last sentence, personally I don't like giving specific conditions under which a proposed change can be made. It feels like something that has to be determined on a case-by-base basis. If the editor is fixing something minor, it may not be controversial to proceed. More substantial changes, however, will likely run into problems later on. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
After thinking some more about it, I agree with you. I've been hoping that more editors would comment, but at this point I tend to think it should be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I've removed it. I disagree re: the 1 week bit as that very much goes against the idea here. There are a lot of editors involved with COI work/UPE/COIN who refuse to answer these requests on principle in a way that, IMO, makes any COI edit request contentious unless reviewed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that saying something is contentious should involve more than "I don't trust paid editors". It should be the content that is the issue. That said, I don't see much need for the line, as similarly it isn't the speed of response that makes something contentious, either. - Bilby (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree re: commercial editing, but yes, the time it takes to get a response has nothing to do with whether or not the content is contentious regardless. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm so tempted to start this comment with "if there is no objection", but I think that the removal is a good outcome. Whatever one thinks about commercial editing, there is an element of Warnock's dilemma here, in which it can be very inaccurate to equate silence with agreement. And obviously, it's a problem to have two somewhat contradictory sections within a guideline page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Conflict of interest".